News Intel Finalizes 'Intel on Demand' Pay-As-You-Go Mechanism for CPUs

[Admin]

Intel's Sapphire Rapids' SDSi feature gets detailed: It's all about accelerators.

Intel Finalizes 'Intel on Demand' Pay-As-You-Go Mechanism for CPUs : Read more

 

[Math Geek]

so intel figured out a way to bring subscriptions to the cpu world.

DIAF!!!!!

they have always price gouged on enterprise level stuff and now they want to price gouge and then make you pay to use what you already purchased.

again DIAF!!!!!

 

[InvalidError]

Ah, the happy days of having to juggle the features that are stock vs the features that are in-silicon but pay-walled vs the features that will require you to toss your current CPU for another one.

so intel figured out a way to bring subscriptions to the cpu world.

This isn't Intel's first go at it, they tried it 10+ years ago too.

 

[punkncat]

@Math Geek if someone out there could figure a way to make subscription only air, they would. This should come as no surprise.

 

[USAFRet]

They finally finalized their notes from the Oracle sales pitch.

 

[Eximo]

Interesting to see if the legislation against vehicle hardware subscriptions would apply here. Hopefully New Jersey succeeds in passing their bill and other states follow.

Didn't they also have a physical license for a motherboard feature not too long ago? RAID license keys is popping up for the early 2000s, but I recall something more recent.

 

[Math Geek]

AMD is already taking market share away from intel in server world. does not take a genius to see how AMD could take advantage of this and gain some more.

but sadly, they'll probably follow along until it steamrolls down to consumer products. want that extra 20 mb of juicy L3 cache?? yah that'll be $20 a month.....

again DIAF!!!

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

This isn't what the hardware industry needs.

Who's the bean counter who thought of this, we need to Tar & Feather him.

 

[Giroro]

I hope this pricing structure blows up in Intel's face. It's so wasteful of silicon during a "supply chain crisis", and frankly immoral. Unpatriotic. It's cynical, anti-customer, evil.
Intel charges you to buy perfectly a perfectly working chip, and then wants to charge "infinite money forever" to use the thing you bought and own.
What's worse is that if Intel can enable features at will, it means two additional things: They can remotely access bare-metal control of your hardware, and they have the capability to disable features at will. It's hardware-enabled blackmail. Maybe we trust intel to never-ever steal data, raise prices, recall features, prevent people from buying CPUs used, or to brick old systems entirely .... But if Intel is building themselves a backdoor, then it won't be long until (more) malicious parties find a way to use it for (more) evil.

This is a prime example of why we need to fix property laws and get "Right to Own" laws in place before there is any point in fighting for "Right to Repair". We should fix anti-trust and truth-in-advertising laws while we're at it.
We shouldn't be spending tax dollars to build foundries for Intel if they are just going to abuse their monopoly and take advantage of their customers like this.

 

[InvalidError]

I hope this pricing structure blows up in Intel's face. It's so wasteful of silicon during a "supply chain crisis", and frankly immoral. Unpatriotic. It's cynical, anti-customer, evil.
Intel charges you to buy perfectly a perfectly working chip, and then wants to charge "infinite money forever" to use the thing you bought and own.

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of lower-end CPUs and GPUs that share dies with higher-end models sold over the past 20+ years have fully functional dies too and are being fused off or otherwise locked strictly for artificial market segmentation and profit maximization purposes. The only difference here is that you may be able to turn some of the disabled features that would still be in-silicon either way back on.

 

[USAFRet]

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of lower-end CPUs and GPUs that share dies with higher-end models sold over the past 20+ years have fully functional dies too and are being fused off or otherwise locked strictly for artificial market segmentation and profit maximization purposes. The only difference here is that you may be able to turn some of the disabled features that would still be in-silicon either way back on.

486 DX and SX.

 

[RichardtST]

Massive NO for me. Makes me feel that much better about buying AMD for my employees build party.
Bite me Intel.

 

[MassiveHardware]

What a bunch of whiny AB's on this post! Intel could make 10 different chips with 10 slightly different configurations or they could make one that allows you modify your configuration using a software key. Sure, they're going to stick it to you but what's the alternative: buy a new chip, pull the old one out, and put the new one in. Genius, in my opinion. You probably pirate music and whine about the quality, too.

Someone else suggested that Intel would. need access to your network and data. Why? The software key could stop working based on date, if you haven't paid up - bummer. No need for network access. Next.

Property laws? Nonsense. Let me guess... you're not an attorney. Mic drops...

 

[kjfatl]

This sort of thing isn't new. The company I once worked for started ding this in the 1980's. If Intel is going to spend $20million to develop custom database instructions only needed by 1% of their customers, it is reasonable for them to get paid for them. Today they control these features with fuses.

 

[RedBear87]

so intel figured out a way to bring subscriptions to the cpu world.

This isn't Intel's first go at it, they tried it 10+ years ago too.

Specifically, the old program was aimed at the low end, it was first available for the Pentium G6951 and it was later extended to the i3-2312M , i3-2102 and Pentium G622. In the latter two cases it simply raised frequencies, a paid-for overclock, but for the G6951 it unlocked both additional cache and hyperthreading, while for the 2312M the program unlocked additional cache. The whole program lasted barely one year, it was started in 2010 and killed in 2011. I wonder what makes them think that this approach will be more successful with servers now... we'll see.

 

[TerryLaze]

AMD is already taking market share away from intel in server world. does not take a genius to see how AMD could take advantage of this and gain some more.

but sadly, they'll probably follow along until it steamrolls down to consumer products. want that extra 20 mb of juicy L3 cache?? yah that'll be $20 a month.....

again DIAF!!!

Datacenter/server is much much much less profitable than people think it is....
look at operating profit compared to revenue.
It's also a much smaller market than client/mobile/consoles etc.

For intel to keep bothering doing server CPUs at all they need to make more money out of it, otherwise why not just sell more client stuff.
That's also why they are going so hard towards GPUs, that's going to be a much more profitable market not just for datacenter but for general and gaming markets as well.

It’s All Uphill From Here For Intel’s Datacenter Business

Intel’s Data Center Group has just turned in the third best revenue quarter in its history, just behind the two thirteen-week periods that started off

www.nextplatform.com

For AMD server is just as bad for profits, they make like 30% of the revenue just like intel.
https://ir.amd.com/news-events/pres...-reports-third-quarter-2022-financial-results

Data Center
Net revenue		$	1,609
Operating income		$	505

 

[RichardtST]

Intel didn't take notes on the Mercedes-subscription-heated-seats fiasco? Kinda like buying a network router that will only operate if you also pay $10 a month in subscription fees to be allowed to use it. Hard NO to that one too. (Looking at you, Netgear) Give me my hardware and get out of my face, thank you.

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

Once upon a time you used trainers to unlock everything in a game instantly...

In 2023 you can use a trainer to fully unlock your hardware!

 

[bit_user]

AMD is already taking market share away from intel in server world. does not take a genius to see how AMD could take advantage of this and gain some more.

Or, maybe it lets Intel adopt sticker prices on their CPUs that are artificially low, making it more difficult for people to do price comparisons. The sneaky part is that they can also set the "On Demand" feature pricing artificially low, at launch. Later, they can easily start increasing On Demand pricing, and there's no limit to how high it can go.

But, I think where this could really backfire is if the big OEMs get nervous about Intel depriving their revenues. They could always respond by shifting more of their product lines over to AMD or Ampere.

again DIAF!!!

That means nothing to me. What do some of those letters stand for?

 

[bit_user]

What's worse is that if Intel can enable features at will, it means two additional things: They can remotely access bare-metal control of your hardware, and they have the capability to disable features at will.

No, the way it works is that they sell you a key that you install in the CPU.

However, what they could do is make the key time-limited, forcing you to buy more. At some point, they could stop selling keys for old hardware, thus killing the second-hand market.

But if Intel is building themselves a backdoor, then it won't be long until (more) malicious parties find a way to use it for (more) evil.

I guess ransomware might be able to disable CPU features and cripple your system. They just have to set the ransom lower than it would cost to buy new keys from Intel.

 

[bit_user]

What a bunch of whiny AB's on this post! Intel could make 10 different chips with 10 slightly different configurations or they could make one that allows you modify your configuration using a software key. Sure, they're going to stick it to you but what's the alternative: buy a new chip, pull the old one out, and put the new one in. Genius, in my opinion.

Yes, it has upsides. However, the potential downsides are way bigger. You just need to put on your "evil genius" hat, to think of some.

 

[Giroro]

Datacenter/server is much much much less profitable than people think it is....
look at operating profit compared to revenue.
It's also a much smaller market than client/mobile/consoles etc.

For intel to keep bothering doing server CPUs at all they need to make more money out of it, otherwise why not just sell more client stuff.
That's also why they are going so hard towards GPUs, that's going to be a much more profitable market not just for datacenter but for general and gaming markets as well.

It’s All Uphill From Here For Intel’s Datacenter Business

Intel’s Data Center Group has just turned in the third best revenue quarter in its history, just behind the two thirteen-week periods that started off

www.nextplatform.com

For AMD server is just as bad for profits, they make like 30% of the revenue just like intel.
https://ir.amd.com/news-events/pres...-reports-third-quarter-2022-financial-results

Data Center
Net revenue		$	1,609
Operating income		$	505

So Intel's datacenter group makes $2-$3 Billion in increasing profit every quarter, and that means what to us humans, exactly? That we should give up our basic right to own property because they're unimaginably rich, getting richer all the time, and told us what to do?

 

[TerryLaze]

That means nothing to me. What do some of those letters stand for?

"Die In A Fire"
I had to google it myself...

Yes, it has upsides. However, the potential downsides are way bigger. You just need to put on your "evil genius" hat, to think of some.

But isn't the target audience for this already used to renting x y z amount of computing power for servers and so on?! This is basically the industry standard, you never know exactly what you will get only that it will correspond to whatever computing power you agreed upon.
These aren't made for us.

 

[TerryLaze]

So Intel's datacenter group makes $2-$3 Billion in increasing profit every quarter, and that means what to us humans, exactly? That we should give up our basic right to own property because they're unimaginably rich, getting richer all the time, and told us what to do?

Hey, nobody said you should give up any right, do whatever you want.
I'm just saying that intel is also going to do whatever they want, you don't have to buy it, it doesn't have to be your property.

 

[Giroro]

No, the way it works is that they sell you a key that you install in the CPU.

If intel wants to get their infinite money forever, which they do, then it has to be able to phone home to authenticate - and it has to remotely install executable code to make it work in the first place.

Otherwise, then why is Intel acting like they needed to overcome some technical challenge? As has been pointed out earlier, Intel tried the local install thing about a decade ago. The last time they tried this, it was a massive failure and unrecoverable PR disaster. The people responsible lost their jobs. I don't think it's any coincidence that Pat Gelsinger had to find a different company to work for, around that time. Now he's back, and now this terrible idea is back.
Interesting coincidence.